Making sure what your code does you think it does, with Vet
The article discusses the use of Vet, a tool designed to help software engineers ensure their code behaves as intended. The author shares their experience using Vet to debug a p5.js sketch that had a bug related to collision detection. Overall, they found Vet to be easy to use and effective in identifying issues in their code.
- ▪Vet reviews git diffs and commit messages to verify code changes against intended functionality.
- ▪The author encountered a bug in their p5.js sketch where the ball's vertical collision detection incorrectly compared against width instead of height.
- ▪Vet flagged multiple issues, including a logic error and irrelevant files in the commit, showcasing its capabilities as a debugging tool.
Hacker News (Newest) files mainly under programming. We currently carry 5,306 of its stories.
Story provenance
Source · retrieval · rights · ranking — open for full record
inspect →
Attribution is not the same as permission. This drawer separates discovery metadata, excerpts, WeSearch-generated summaries, reuse status, and whether the publisher receives the visit. Nothing here claims a legal grant the publisher has not made.
Record
| Original publisher | // commentary — notes on tech |
| Canonical URL | https://robocall.github.io//bouncing-balls |
| Publication time | Fri, 22 May 2026 00:39:02 +0000 |
| Retrieval time | 2026-05-22T01:01:36.526Z |
| Last seen | 2026-05-22T01:01:36.526Z |
| Headline source | Publisher (no WeSearch rewrite) |
| Excerpt source | publisher body |
| Excerpt method | First ~120 words (~800 chars) of extracted publisher body, fair-use limited. |
| Summary | WeSearch · cerebras-chat (WeSearch summarizer) |
| Summary source text | contentText |
| Citation coverage | Summary is a WeSearch-generated derivative; primary citation is the original publisher URL. |
| Cluster | ftHTiBetJ3vx |
| Cluster logic | Grouped by semantic title/content similarity across sources within a rolling window. Same-publisher template collisions are excluded from coverage comparison. |
| Ranking reason | Story pages are not engagement-ranked. Hub feeds use recency, with optional source-diversified chronological ordering (cap consecutive stories per source). No personalized ranking. |
| Publisher visit | Yes — open original |
| Substitutes article? | No — link-out required for full text |
Rights status (four layers)
WeSearch handling by dimension
| Indexing | May the item be indexed (stored, ranked, made findable)? | Allowed |
| Snippet | May a short excerpt of the publisher's text be shown? | Allowed |
| AI summary | May WeSearch generate its own short summary of the article? | Limited |
| Retrieval / RAG | May the content be exposed for third-party retrieval-augmented generation? | Not asserted |
| Model training | May the content be used to train AI models? | Not asserted |
| Commercial reuse | May the content be reused commercially? | Not permitted |
Basis: Derived from the published RSS/Atom feed. Contact: [email protected]. Reviewed: 2026-07-24.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
Making sure what your code does you think it does, with Vet 2026-05-21 / 738 words · 5 min The biggest issue I run into as a software engineer is when my code doesn’t do what I think it does. I tried using Vet to solve this problem. Vet reviews your git diff plus a commit message, and asks an LLM whether your code change matches what you wanted. In this walkthrough, I briefly go over how I set up and used vet to debug a deliberately broken p5.js sketch. Overall, I found it easy to use and surprising effective! The sketch I wanted the sketch to show a simple ball that bounces off the edges of the canvas. On the right is the relevant p5.js code and on the left is the sketch working in the happy case.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at // commentary — notes on tech.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from // commentary — notes on tech
